comparable tract [indicating] which is only a mile or a mile and a quarter away, I just do not see those great differences myself.

Mr. PRICE. Unless we all pretty well understand what the situation is now and I think all of us, at least, are in sympathy with the sportsmen and the State departments to have the continuous tracts-they have a different problem to face as to what they will do from that standpoint.

In your reference to the debate at the time the bill was under consideration in the Senate, and with reference to Senator Dirksen's statements, that debate, however, was held last year, or last August. Since that time the position of the Army has been made known at least more forcefully to the Congress than it was at the time that debate took place. While there was complete unanimity of opinion at the time of the debate in the Senate, when the Army's position became known, then there were contacts made with State officials, and while they did maintain that both tracts 3 and 4 were certainly a more desirable plan and one which they wished they could have and which could be improved.

The State itself has come to the conclusion that they cannot get it, and rather than risk the loss of the project in its entirety, they are amenable to the compromise and that, of course, includes Senator Dirksen. As a matter of fact, he was the one who advised the State officials of the Army's proposed compromise.

Without objection, the letter which we have received for the record from Senator Dirksen's office will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The letter referred to follows:)

U.S. SENATE, MINORITY LEADER, February 18, 1960.

Hon. WILLIAM G. STRATTON,
Governor, State of Illinois,
Springfield, IN.

DEAR GOVERNOR: After a conference with Army officials on Wednesday afternoon they advised that they deemed it essential to the Army's Reserve training program, conducted principally for residents of the Chicago area, that the Army retain the 1,500 acres of land in the Des Plaines Wildlife Refuge area which S. 747 would transfer to the State of Illinois, and that it would strongly urge a veto for any legislation passed by Congress which included a conveyance of this tract.

I explored with them the alternatives for obtaining for the State of Illinois an area close to Chicago which would be suitable for conservation and wildlife purposes. I am now assured that the Army will assent to legislation along the line which I proposed in my testimony before the Senate Committee on Government Operations when the Senate bill was under consideration.

I urged and, in fact, formalized a proposal in what was referred to as the Dirksen amendment that two parcels of land along the Des Plaines River would be sold by General Services Administration at public sale for commercial de velopment; secondly, after the conference which you and I had on this matter, that the State be permitted to purchase about 842 acres at an agreed price and that the Federal Government then grant to the State without compensation an additional tract for conservation purposes, which is customarily referred to as tract 5.

I am advised also that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives and Representative Leslie Arends, the ranking Re publican on that committee from the State of Illinois, will urge the approval of legislation which would carry out this program.

The tract which the Army would convey to the State of Illinois for conservation purposes contains about 1,230 acres and this would be a grant without compensation.

In addition, the Army has assured me that it would permit the State to use the adjacent 1,500-acre tract at all times when it is not necessary for training exercises which are conducted usually on weekends and will permit the use of this property by the State for weekend hunting during the pheasant season.

I know how deeply you and the director of conservation are interested in this matter and likewise the various sportsmen's groups in the State. I have, therefore, undertaken to pursue a course that would achieve maximum conservation and recreation benefits for the sportsmen of the State and at the same time do nothing that would invite a veto for this legislation when it is approved by the Congress and submitted to the President for approval, because a veto could terminate all our hopes for this session after so much work has been done on this project. We have nursed it along for more than 3 years and I want to see this consummated as soon as possible.

I send this information to you in some detail because you may encounter questions on this subject, and you are free to make public the entire content of this letter.

May I at this time also express to you my appreciation for your earnest and continuing cooperation on this matter in the interest of conservation, wildlife, and recreation.

With every good wish,

EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN.

Mr. PRICE. That, in effect, is the State position, that certainly the original plan of the State's purchase of tract 3 and the grant of tract 4 was more desirable. They wished that they could have it. I am speaking substantively as to what I know the State position to be. They would like to have that. However, they have practically resigned themselves to the position that they will not be able to get that package. Therefore, they are agreeable to taking the other package.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. I brought that out in my statement, that the local conservation organizations in the State have supported this so-called latest compromise just because they feel that that is the only thing they can get.

Mr. PRICE. That is right. What position

Mr. GUTERMUTH. Apparently that is the position of a lot of others. I, of course, will have to be content like everyone else, if that is all we can get for the people. But, the fact still remains that I know this area very well. I am a former Hoosier; was in the Indiana Department of Conservation for a score of years; and know the Kankakee area and Calumet region well. I have a comprehensive understanding of the demands of the people of that area, and when I listened to the small use that has been made of this 1,500-acre tract in recent months by the military, all I can say is that in my humble opinion, gentlemen, the demands of 9 million people in the future ought to be given a lot more consideration than just merely satisfying some whims and fancies in meeting small military training needs.

Now, we have those other great military areas that have been mentioned by the distinguished members of this committee here yesterday, the Great Lakes, Camp Sheridan, and those other tracts. I do not think that we have too seriously handicapped our military training program in this country. But, we still have other things that must be looked after also that are terribly important for the overall standpoint and long term good of the general public. When you considerand they so testified yesterday-the Department of the Army indicated that it started just a few months ago to go into intensive training on that 1,400-acre tract, but up until that time it obviously was not needed. The security of this great Nation of ours was all right up until that time apparently, but now they have found this area to

be vital. The big question is then, Shall they be using this 1,400-acre tract for military training purposes on a part-time basis, or should it be this tract here [indicating]?

I contend that for the good of the vast majority of people, and for the development of a real recreational program, we should have an integrated area where the State of Illinois can manage it in the public interest. The fact that they would be using a slightly separated area over here across that big superhighway for part-time military training it looks to me like they could meet their requirements there. With that, I will have to conclude my statement and I want to thank this committee very much, because this is an important problem. Mr. PRICE. What would be the effect of the use in the recreational areas or hunting areas of the separation of the two tracts?

Mr. GUTERMUTH. I can conceive that it would be very difficult. Of course, the Illinois department director, Mr. Palmer, apparently feels that they can get along with this new compromise area. Well, again, it is a question of merely getting along with it. Now, an awful lot of State money has been put into the development and improvements of those original tracts, and those improvements already are there. Certainly, commonsense dictates that they could manage that consolidated area much better and they would not have a job of separation, a job of separation of enforcement people to enforce the game laws and that sort of thing. The enforcement people would not have to be constantly and continuously going back across the big highway. They would not have to be running from one area to the other. I do not think that it actually would require two people but, certainly, it would complicate matters. The point is that since the Joliet Arsenal is still going to end up with more than 32,000 acres, it looks to me as though they could meet their training program on the remaining 32,000

acres.

I cannot help but think that inasmuch as they let the State of Illinois use this land under their own approved and agreed to leasing program for 10 or 12 years now-it has been going for 10 or 12 years-I do not see why the Senate bill plan cannot be permitted.

Mr. DOYLE. Basically, I do not think I disagree with this witness and the position he takes, but it does present a problem, because the State authorities apparently OK'd this compromise.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is right.

Mr. DOYLE. And, after all, it is in the State of Illinois, even though it is Federal property.

I wish to say this, though, to my distinguished committee chairman and colleagues: I am not very much impressed with the showing by the military of substantial use yet. I am not convinced that they have presented a substantial enough justification for taking this area now for military training for this comparatively limited number of military personnel. I am aware of the testimony by the gentlemen coming from the military of the need of this area which has only developed within the last year. That is an effort to explain why they have not used it before to any extent. In fact, they never kept a record and they have never had any use of it until the last year, according to their testimony.

I want this witness to understand, though, that when the military says that they need an area for military needs, that I am inclined to

take their conclusions, because our national defense is more important than almost anything else, and I am in that position. However, if I vote for this compromise, it will be with hesitation and not very much pleasure or not very much satisfaction or, shall I withdraw that and say with the understanding that I am not convinced that the military has made a substantial showing of the need of the continued use of this area. Their need may change, because it has changed within

the last year or two.

I want to suggest this: I believe that the need of 8 million, 9 million or 10 million people for adequate recreation facilities is such in this area that unless the military can show a substantial use of this land and a continuing substantial use, and probably an increasing use, and a very substanital increasing use, someone ought to take another look at it. And, unless the military can prove that they absolutely need this more substantially than I think they do at the present, the interested parties ought to take a look at it and see if the needs of 8 million, 9 million, and 10 million people in this area for active recreation use is not more important than what appears to me is a very limited military use today. Yet, I recognize that taking the military testimony at 100 percent value, they need it now.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. I think your attitude concerning the inadequate showing on the part of the military of the real need for this area is exactly that of the Senate committee and the Members of the Senate when they considered this matter.

I heard it said here yesterday that the Army had not been invited to those previous hearings.

Mr. DOYLE. That is right.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. And that their views had not been considered. That, to me, is inconceivable. They had plenty opportunity. They knew what was going on in those hearings. They knew what was going on, and that conferences were being held between Members of the Senate and Mr. Floete's office. Actually, the Army's views were expressed in those committee meetings.

I ended up and concluded my statement by saying that we hopeand I think this is important in connection with your commentthat there is a clear showing in the legislative history of this bill, that when and if it is determined by the military that parcel No. 4 is no longer needed for military purposes, that this 1,500-acre tract will be made available to the Illinois Department of Conservation. Mr. PRICE. Is that a suggestion now?

Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is my suggestion and it is contained here in the conclusion of my prepared statement-that this be made a part of the legislative history of this legislation by both this committee and by the Congress.

Mr. PRICE. I do not imagine the Army would object to anything like that.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. No, it certainly would not. I do not see how the Army could object, if it is through with the property.

There is one thing that disturbs me, and then I will definitely conclude, Mr. Chairman: When the original tracts totaling about 1,500 acres were declared surplus, and bids were let by GSA, and they took

industrial bids on the area, and are now proposing to sell it, well, I cannot help but say one thing in that connection and that is this: You have miles of private land up and down both sides of that river that are just as suitable for industrial purposes as that particular tract. According to the original legislation that was introduced in the Congress, those original tracts which subsequently have been made available and I do not know whether they have been sold yet or not for industrial purposes-but those original tracts had been used, as I said before, for 10 or 12 years by the Illinois department, and I still contend that we are being sort of penny foolish when we offer that land for industrial sale when it had been used for public purposes all of these years. I think that was a serious mistake. Mr. DOYLE. May I say something else?

Mr. PRICE. Surely.

Mr. NORBLAD. May I say that I thoroughly concur in the views of Mr. Doyle which were expressed a minute ago. I think he is absolutely dead-right, and I would like those views to represent my feelings.

Mr. DOYLE. I should say to my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Norblad, this: The offer has been made by the distinguished Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Short, and the rest of the military men here of the joint use of this tract 4 by the Army and the civilian use. I think that is a very important consideration and I would hope that unless there is absolute necessity to protect classified operations or something similar, that there be no fences put around any part of tract 4 by the military. Certainly, that would defeat civilian use, and I would think it would be inconsistent. I am glad to see the Assistant Secretary shake his head kind of affirming my observation. However, that is my point. In other words, I would hope, and I would expect, the military-because that is the consideration of this compromise that there be joint use of this tract 4, with the military determination, however, that the absolute military needs be paramount, and I recognize that. But, I certainly would not expect the military to in any way interfere with the maximum civilian use, consistent with military needs at all times.

Mr. GUTERMUTH. I have great respect and admiration of Assistant Secretary Short. I have known him for many years and he is a very fair-minded person and he is conservation minded. I find myself in a difficult position on the opposite side of the fence from him on a matter of this kind.

I also would like to say that if I thought we were impairing the military tarining program of the country in any respect, we would not be for this transfer at all. But, I still contend they can meet their military needs for this kind of a training program-perhaps, the substitute area would not be 1,000 percent as good as the other area, but, after all, we also have the pressing needs and basic requirements of a rapidly mounting human population in one of the heaviest population concentration areas of the world to consider. Here then, we are talking about an area which has very meager recreation facilities available for that vast number of people. This tract is only 35 miles from the heart of that great area, let's not forget that important fact.

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutermuth.